** The following special abbreviations are used:

O.D.I.L.A.: Ocean Development and International Law Journal – The Journal of Marine Affairs; Off. Rec: Official Records of the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Geneva 1958 (VII volumes);

U.N.L.S. (15): United Nations Legislative Series: National legislation and treaties relating to the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the continental shelf, the high seas and to fishing and conservation of the living resources of the sea, U.N.Doc.ST/LEG/SER.B/15(1970);

U.N.L.S.(16): United Nations Legislative Series: National legislation and treaties relating to the law of the sea, U.N. Doc.ST/LEG/SER.B/16(1974);

Y.I.L.C: Yearbook of the International Law Commission.

1. Knauss, J.A., Development of the freedom of scientific research issue of the third law of the sea conference, O.D.I.L.A. 1973, p. 94.Google Scholar Until the nineteenth century science in general was seldom hampered by frontiers, even in times of war. During the Napoleonic war Humphrey Davies was able to travel from England to Paris to deliver a lecture at the Institut de France, and Captain Cook's vessel was granted safe conduct by Benjamin Franklin during a period of strained relations between Great Britain and the United States. Only in the nineteenth century national frontiers, despite the universal and open character of the scientific community, began to constitute a barrier to scientific mobility and cooperation. See, King, A., International cooperation in science and technology, in Pacem in maribus, vol. V, The ocean environment, Malta, 1970, p. 212.Google Scholar

2. Schaefer, M.B., Freedom of scientific research and exploration in the sea, Stanford Journal of International Studies 1969, p. 60.Google Scholar

3. The situation at that time is illustrated by the fact that in the literature on the law of the sea before the 1960's no mention is made of legal aspects involved in the conduct of marine scientific research.

4. See, e.g., Burke, W.T., A report on international legal problems of scientific research in the oceansGoogle Scholar, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Doc.PB-177–724, Springfield, Va. 1967. Brown, E.D., Freedom of scientific research and the legal regime of hydrospace, Indian Journal of International Law 1969, pp. 327–380.Google ScholarBouchez, L.J., The legal regime of scientific research on the sea-bed, in Proceedings of the symposium on the international regime of the seabed, Sztucki, J. ed., Rome 1970, pp. 591–618.Google ScholarMenzel, E., Scientific research on the sea-bed and its regimeGoogle Scholar, id., 619–647. Dixit, R.K., Freedom of scientific research in and on the high seas, Indian Journal of International Law 1971, pp. 1–8.Google ScholarColliard, C.A., Le regime de la recherche scientifique sur le fond des mers, in Le fond des mers, Paris, 1971, pp. 165–180.Google ScholarRedfield, M., The legal framework for oceanic research, in Freedom of oceanic research, Wooster, W.S. ed., New York, 1973, pp. 41–95.Google Scholar

5. Kildow, J.A. Tegger, Nature of the present restrictions on oceanic research, in Freedom of oceanic research, Wooster, W.S. ed., New York, 1973, pp. 5–28.Google Scholar

6. See infra, Section 1.3.

7. Schaefer, , op. cit., n. 2, p. 46.Google Scholar

8. On this aspect see, inter alia, Bello, E.G., The present state of marine science and oceanography in the less developed countries, International Lawyer 1974, pp. 231–241.Google ScholarPontecorvo, G., Ocean science and mutual assistance: an uneasy alliance, O.D.I.L.A. 1973, pp. 51–64.Google ScholarFranssen, H.T., Developing country views of sea law and marine science, in Freedom of oceanic research, Wooster, W.S. ed., New York, 1973, pp. 137–178.Google ScholarFranssen, M.N., Oceanic research and the developing nation perspectiveGoogle Scholar, id., pp. 179–200. Ross, D.A. and Smith, L.J., Training and technical assistance in marine science – a viable transfer product, O.D.I. L. A. 1974, pp. 219–253.Google ScholarWaggener, S.L., The transfer of marine science technology – quid pro quo for freedom of scientific research?, San Diego Law Review 1975, pp. 700–716.Google Scholar

9. On the technologies used in marine scientific research see, inter alia, Fye, P.M., Maxwell, A.E., Emery, K.O. and Ketchum, B.H., Ocean science and marine resources, in Uses of the seas, Gullion, E.A. ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1968, pp. 24–30.Google ScholarBascom, W., Technology and the Ocean, in The ocean, San Francisco, 1969, pp. 115–118.Google ScholarOcean data acquisition systems (ODAS) of the world, UNESCO/IMCO Doc. SC-72/CONF.85/5, 10 11 1971.Google ScholarWilliams, J., Oceanographic instrumentation, Annapolis, 1973.Google ScholarStehling, K.R., Remote sensing of the oceans, in Oceanography. Contemporary readings in ocean sciences, Pirie, R.G. ed., New York, London and Toronto, 1973, pp. 50–56.Google Scholar

10. Cf., Bouchez, L.J., The freedom of the high seas: a reappraisal, in The future of the law of the sea, Bouchez, L.J. and Kaijen, L. eds., The Hague, 1973, pp. 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. For example Schaefer, M.B., The changing law of the sea-effects on the freedom of scientific investigation, in The future of the sea's resources, Alexander, L.M. ed., Kingston.R.I., 1968, pp. 113–117.Google ScholarFye, P.M., Ocean policy and scientific freedomGoogle Scholar, Columbus O'Donnell Iselin Memorial Lecture, Marine Technology Society, Washington D.C., 1972. Langeraar, W., Oceanographic research, in The future of the law of the sea, Bouchez, L.J. and Kaijen, L. eds., The Hague 1973, pp. 95–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCadwalader, G., Freedom for science in the oceans, Science 1973 (vol. 182), pp. 15–20.Google Scholar

12. Wooster, W.S., The ocean and man, in The ocean, San Francisco, 1969, p. 123.Google ScholarSchaefer, , op. cit., n. 2, pp. 47–48.Google Scholar

13. Wooster, W.S. and Bradley, M.D., Access requirements of oceanic research: the scientists' perspective, in Freedom of oceanic research, Wooster, W.S. ed., New York, 1973, pp. 29–40Google Scholar. The water's edge: critical problems of the coastal zone, Ketchum, B.H. ed., Cambridge, Mass, and London 1972.Google Scholar

14. See, inter alia, Resolutions by and communications from the International Council of Scientific Unions concerning Part II, Section III of the articles concerning the law of the sea (Continental shelf), U.N. Doc.A/CONF.13/28 (13 January 1958); and Resolution 10 adopted by the 14th General Assembly of ICSU in September 1972, at Helsinki (the text of this resolution can be found in O.D.I.L.A. 1973, p. 120).Google Scholar

15. Cf., Vargas, J.A., Normative aspects of scientific research in the oceans. The case of MexicoGoogle Scholar, Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, Occasional Paper No. 23, October 1974, p. 1.

16. Cf., the Revised Single Negotiating Text, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.1, 6 May 1976; Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, vol. V, pp. 185–201.

17. This question was discussed by Professor R.Y. Jennings in his lecuture “The discipline of international law”, delivered in the University of Madrid on 30 August 1976, and published by the International Law Association, London, 1977.

18. For an account of these developments in general see the articles by Stevenson, J.R. and Oxman, B.H. in A.J.I.L. 1974, pp. 1–32Google Scholar; and A.J.I.L. 1975, pp. 1–30 and 763–797.Google Scholar Specifically on marine scientific research: Fricke, P., Consent regime inevitable for marine research?, Marine Policy 1977, pp. 71–73.Google ScholarCampbell, N.J., Bradford, J.D. and Holland, G.L., Implementation of the science provisions of the revised single negotiating text from the Law of the Sea ConferenceGoogle Scholar, paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute of the University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I., June 1976. von Welck, S., Zur Kodifizierung des intemationalen Rechts der Meeresforschung aufder 3. V.N.–Seerechtskonferenz, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 1976, pp. 181–184.Google ScholarBurke, W.T., Scientific research articles in the law of the sea informal single negotiating textGoogle Scholar, Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, Occasional Paper No. 25, June 1975.

19. This article thus is primarily concerned with the legal regime of marine scientific research conducted by vessels.

20. Fleming, R.H., Man and the ocean, in Ocean resources and public policy, English, T.S. ed., Seattle and London, 1973, pp. 3–10Google Scholar. Revelle, R., The ocean, in The ocean, San Francisco, 1969, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

21. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Uses of the Sea, U.N. Doc.E/5120, p. 6.Google Scholar

22. Idem, p. 14.

23. See, Flipse, J.E., Deep ocean mining technology and its impact on the law of the sea, in Law of the sea: Caracas and beyond, Christy, F.T., Clingan, T.A., Gamble, J.K., Knight, H.G. and Miles, E. eds., Cambridge, Mass., 1975, pp. 325–332Google Scholar. Mero, J.L., The great nodule controversyGoogle Scholar, id., pp. 343–349. Economic implications of sea-bed mineral development in the international area: report of the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.62/25, 22 05 1974Google Scholar, in Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, vol. III, pp. 4–40, particularly pp. 15–22.

24. United Nations Economic and Social Council, op. cit., n. 21, p. 23.Google Scholar

25. Wooster, W.S., Commentary, in The United Nations and ocean management, Alexander, L.M. ed., Kingston, R.I., 1971, p. 143.Google Scholar

26. On the history of oceanography see, The science of the sea. A history of oceanography, Idyll, C.P. ed., London, 1970.Google Scholar

27. Fye, , c.s., op. cit., n. 9, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

28. Bullaid, E., The origin of the oceans, in The ocean, San Francisco, 1969, pp. 15–26Google Scholar. Menard, H.W., The deep-ocean floorGoogle Scholar, id., pp. 53–64.

29. Revelle, R., Scientific research on the sea-bed. International cooperation in scientific research and exploration of the sea-bed, in Proceedings of the symposium on the international regime of the sea-bed, Sztucki, J. ed., Rome, 1970, pp. 649–655.Google Scholar

30. See, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Comprehensive outline of the scope of the long-term and expanded programme of oceanic exploration and research, I.O.C. Technical Series No. 7, Unesco, 1970.Google Scholar

31. U.N.G.A. Res.2414(XXIII), 17 December 1968, operative paragraph no. 3.

32. The preparation of the Programme is described in Wooster, W.S., Interactions between inter-governmental and scientific organizations in marine affairs, International Organization 1973, pp. 106–109.Google Scholar

33. Galey, M.E., The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission: its capacity to implement an international decade of ocean exploration.Google Scholar Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island, Occasional Paper No. 20, November 1973, pp. i–ii and 1–4. See also, National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering, An oceanic quest. The international decade of ocean exploration, Washington D.C., 1969.Google Scholar

34. United Nations Economic and Social Council, The sea. Prevention and control of marine pollution, U.N. Doc.E/5003, 7 05 1971Google Scholar. Ward, B. and Dubos, R., Only one earth. The care and maintenance of a small planet, Harmondsworth, 1972, pp. 270–285Google Scholar. Matthews, G., Pollution of the oceans: an international problem?, Ocean Management 1973, pp. 161–170Google Scholar. Knauss, , op. cit., n.1, pp. 101–103.Google Scholar

35. The examples given in this paragraph are derived from the list of recommended research projects on marine pollution in Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Perspectives in Oceanography 1968, I.O.C. Technical Series No. 6, Unesco, 1969, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

36. Holt, S.J., The food resources of the ocean, in The ocean, San Francisco, 1969, pp. 93–106Google Scholar. Koers, A.W., International regulation of marine fisheries. A study of regional fisheries organizations, London, 1973, pp. 69–73.Google Scholar

37. Waldichuk, M., Coastal marine pollution and fish. Ocean Management 1974, pp. 1–60Google Scholar. Marine pollution and sea life, Ruivo, M. ed., London, 1972.Google Scholar

38. Joseph, J. and Stevenson, M.R., A review of some possible uses of remote sensing techniques in fishery research and commercial fisheries, in Proceedings of 16th COSPAR Earth Survey Problems Symposium 1973, Berlin, 1974, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar

39. Isaacs, J.D., The nature of oceanic life, in The ocean, San Francisco, 1969, pp. 65–80Google Scholar. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, op. cit., n. 30, pp. 13–16. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, op. cit., n. 35, pp. 20–29. United Nations Economic and Social Council, op. cit., n. 21, p. 9.

40. United Nations Economic and Social Council, op. cit., n. 21, pp. 10–13.

41. Id., pp. 13–14.

42. Albers, J.P. and Beiryhill, H.L., Global geologic processes and their practical significance, Ocean Management 1973, pp. 263–274Google Scholar. Bullaid, , op. cit., n. 28.Google ScholarMenard, , op. cit., n. 28.Google Scholar Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, op. cit., n. 30, pp. 17–19. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, op. cit., n. 35, pp. 29–31.

43. Rona, P.A., New evidence for seabed resources from global tectonics, Ocean Management 1973, pp. 145–159.Google Scholar

44. Stewart, R.W., The atmosphere and the ocean, in The ocean, San Francisco, 1969, pp. 27–38Google Scholar. Knauss, , op. cit., n. 1, pp. 103–104Google Scholar. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, op. cit., n. 30, pp. 9–12Google Scholar. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, op. cit., n. 35, pp. 31–32Google Scholar. The World Meteorological Organization (W.M.O.) plays an important role in this field: cf., the GARP (Global Atmospheric Research Programme) Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE), a scientific experiment relating to the meteorological and oceanographic processes of the Atlantic ocean, which took place during the summer of 1974 under the auspices of W.M.O.

45. Trb. 1959, 124; U.N.T.S., vol. 450, p. 82Google Scholar (hereinafter referred to as High Seas Convention). The Convention entered into force on 30 September 1962. On 31 December 1975, 55 States (including the Netherlands) were party to the Convention.

46. On the preamble see, Simonnet, M.R., La convention surla haute mer, Paris, 1966, pp. 211–214.Google Scholar

47. Article 1 of the High Seas Convention.

48. Y.I.L.C. 1955, vol. I, p. 222Google Scholar; see also the discussion at the 284th meeting, id., p. 9.

49. Y.I.L.C. 1955, vol. II, p. 21.Google Scholar

50. Id., pp. 21–22.

51. Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. II, p. 80.Google Scholar

52. Id., pp. 9–10.

53. Id., p. 10.

54. Y.I.L.C 1956, vol. I, pp. 11–14 and 29–32.Google Scholar

55. Id., p. 12.

56. Id., p. 29.

57. Id., p. 12. Later, Fitzmaurice said he would not press the inclusion of this fifth item in the article, provided reference to it would be retained in the Commentary; id., pp. 30 and 31.

58. Id., pp. 29–30.

59. Id., p. 31.

60. Id., p. 32. Eventually, this reference was in fact only included as a result of the insistence of Fitzmaurice, during the discussions of the Commission on its draft Report; id., p. 261.

61. Draft Article 27 read as follows: “The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. Freedom of the high seas comprises, inter alia: 1. Freedom of navigation; 2. Freedom of fishing; 3. Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines; 4. Freedom to fly over the high seas.” Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. II, p. 278.Google Scholar

62. Ibid.

63. For the Commission's discussions on scientific research in the continental shelf area see, infra, Subsection 3.2.2.

64. Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. II, p. 298.Google Scholar

65. A/CONF.13/C.2/L.7; Off.Rec., vol. IV, p. 117.Google Scholar

66. Off.Rec., vol. IV, p. 38.Google Scholar

67. Id., p. 55. Later, the present Article 2 of the High Seas Convention was adopted by the Conference at its tenth plenary meeting by 51 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention; Off.Rec.,vol. II, p. 20.Google Scholar

68. A/CONF.13/C.2/L.30; Off.Rec., vol. IV, p. 124.Google Scholar

69. A/CONF.13/C.2/L.7I/Rev.1; id., p. 134.

70. Probably also because of its previous history. Cf., the discussions during the eighth session of the I.L.C. in 1956, also on the question of the permissibility of nuclear tests on the high seas, as a result of a suggestion by the United Kingdom in exactly the same wording as the Portuguese proposal; see, supra, Section 2.2.

71. Simonnet, , op. cit., n. 46, pp. 33–36Google Scholar. Bouchez, , op. cit., n. 4, pp. 606–607.Google Scholar

72. At the Conference the issue of marine scientific research was also discussed in the Fourth Committee, in connection with the regime of the continental shelf, but no conclusions can be drawn from these debates for the question of marine scientific research in the high seas since they were clearly limited to the continental shelf situation.

73. A/CONF.13/C.2/L.68; Off.Rec., vol. IV, p. 134.Google Scholar

74. The only comment on the British proposal came from the delegate of France, who stated that he did not understand the words “…other (freedoms) which are recognised by the general principles of international law”; Off.Rec., vol. IV, p. 55Google Scholar. The British proposal was adopted by 30 votes to 18, with 9 abstentions; ibid.

75. For example, Tammes, A.J.P., Is het plaatsen en gebruiken van een “televisie-eiland” rechtmatig?, Nederlands Juristenblad 1964, pp. 672–675.Google Scholar

76. Bos, M., La liberté de la haute mer: quelques problèmes d'actualite, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 1965, pp. 343–350Google Scholar. McDougal, M.S. and Burke, W.T., The public order of the oceans. A contemporary international law of the sea, New Haven and London, 1962, pp. 81–86, 751–763 and 790–794.Google Scholar

77. Bouchez, , op. cit., n. 10, pp. 32–35.Google Scholar

78. Bouchez, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 607.Google Scholar

79. Burke, , op. cit., n. 4, pp. 77–78Google Scholar. Also McDougal, and Burke, , op. cit., n. 76, p. 792.Google Scholar

80. Brown, , op. cit., n. 4, pp. 346–348.Google Scholar

81. Colliard, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 172.Google Scholar

82. Jenisch, U., A comparative study of current draft conventions and proposals for a new ocean regime from the point of view of scientific research, in From the law of the sea towards an ocean space regime. Practical and legal implications of the marine revolution, Böhme, E. and Kehden, M.I. eds., Hamburg, 1972, p. 141.Google Scholar

83. Kolodkin, A.L. and Molodcov, S.V., Seefriedensrecht (transl. by Weber, H.), Hamburg, 1973, p. 86.Google Scholar

84. Oda, S., International law of the resources of the sea, R.d.C. 1969–II, p. 475.Google Scholar

85. Vargas, , op. cit., n. 15, p. 2.Google Scholar

86. Dixit, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 3Google Scholar submits that scientific research on the high seas never formed part of the freedom of the sea under customary international law; only certain rights of research are derived from the Continental Shelf Convention and the Fisheries Convention. These rights cannot in his view form the basis of a general principle of freedom of scientific research in the high seas.

87. Menzel, E., op. cit., n. 4, pp. 619 and 646.Google Scholar He expresses doubt whether there exists a general freedom of scientific research. On the other hand he states at p. 630 that research vessels enjoy freedom of movement and action on the high seas. This seems to be an inconsistency.

88. Cf., the last sentence of Article 2 of the High Seas Convention.

89. Trb. 1959, 126; U.N.T.S., vol. 499, p. 311Google Scholar (hereinafter referred to as Continental Shelf Convention). The Convention entered into force on 10 June 1964. On 31 December 1975, 53 States (including the Netherlands) were party to the Convention.

90. In Article 64 of Part II of the Revised Single Negotiating Text, the continental shelf is defined as follows: “The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the sea-bed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.”

91. Cf., Article 2 of the Continental Shelf Convention.

92. According to the International Court of Justice, in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, the first three articles of the Continental Shelf Convention could already in 1958 be regarded as reflecting pre-existing or at least emergent rules of customary international law. I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 39.Google Scholar

93. Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. II, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

94. Draft Article 2 read as follows: “The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources”; Y.I.L.C. 1953, vol. II, p. 212.Google Scholar

95. Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. II, p. 87Google Scholar. Cf., also the United Kingdom government's comments on the I.L.C draft article on the principle of the freedom of the high seas; Id., p. 80.

96. Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. I, p. 147Google Scholar. The text of draft Article 2 is quoted above in footnote 94. Draft Article 3 stipulated that the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters as high seas; Y.I.L.C. 1953, vol. II, p. 212.Google Scholar

97. Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. I, pp. 147–148.Google Scholar

98. Id., p. 148.

99. Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. II, p. 298Google Scholar. This passage was included in the commentary to draft Article 68, which was identical to the former draft Article 2 (see, supra, n. 94).

100. Draft Article 68 already stipulated that the coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources.

101. Francois, Sandstrøm, Pal and Fitzmaurice.

102. Sweden, , Off.Rec., vol. VI, p. 3Google Scholar; Panama, id., p. 5; Dominican Republic, id., p. 9; Colombia, id., p. 10; Denmark, id., p. 13 and United Arab Republic, id., p. 28.

103. Id., pp. 8–9. The I.C.S.U. communication had been distributed as UN Doc.A/CONF.13/28 (not included in Off.Rec.).

104. The communication refers to the I.C.S.U. resolutions of April 1954 and August 1955. For the text of these resolutions see, supra, Subsection 3.2.2 (n.93).

105. For the text of the I.L.C.'s commentary, see, supra, Subsection 3.2.2. (n. 99).

106. FRANCE (A/CONF.13/C.4/L. 7) proposed to amend Article 68 in order to establish the necessity of obtaining the coastal State's consent to any research in the seabed or subsoil of the continental shelf; Off.Rec., vol. VI, p. 128.Google Scholar

DENMARK (A/CONF.13/C.4/L.10) proposed to add a second paragraph to Article 68, to read as follows: “Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the coastal State may not interfere with fundamental research on the physical characteristics, geology and biology of the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf outside the territorial sea, provided that such research is carried out with the intention of giving due publicity to the results obtained, and that an opportunity is afforded the coastal State to follow the investigations through qualified observers”; id., p. 129.

INDONESIA (A/CONF.13/C.4/L.40) proposed to add a second paragraph to Article 68 to read as follows: “Scientific research of the continental shelf should be given high priority and undertaken with the consent of the coastal State”; id., p. 137.

107. For the discussions see, Off.Rec., vol. VI, pp. 58, 60, 61, 63, 64 and 66Google Scholar. The I.L.C.'s draft Article 71, paragraph 1, read as follows: “The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing, or the conservation of the living resources of the sea”; Y.I.L.C. 1956, vol. II, p. 299.Google Scholar

108. Off.Rec., vol. VI, pp. 82–90.Google Scholar

109. Id., p. 139.

110. Ibid.

111. Id., p. 140.

112. Id., p. 141.

113. Ibid.

114. Id., p. 82.

115. Cf., below, the statement made by Dr. Schaefer.

116. The delegate from Denmark did not explain why a distinction was made between, on the one hand, research concerning the mineral resources of the subsoil and, on the other hand, research concerning the mineral resources and sedentary species of the seabed, to which the coastal State's sovereign rights equally extend.

117. Off.Rec., vol. VI, p. 82.Google Scholar

118. Ibid., The amendment of the Danish proposal led to an intervention by the delegate from Thailand, who stated that he could not support the inclusion of the words “and other scientific”, since the term “scientific research” was extremely broad and might be interpreted to include research into the effects of underwater explosions of atomic weapons. In his opinion, a qualifying term such as “peaceful” should be inserted; otherwise the consent of the coastal State should be required; Id., p. 84.

119. Id., p. 82.

120. Id., pp. 83, 85 and 88, respectively.

121. Id., p. 84.

122. Id., pp. 82, 87 and 89, respectively.

123. Indonesia amended its proposal by adding sub-paragraph (b) of the Iranian proposal and the words “the coastal State may not unreasonably refuse or delay permission for research”; Id., p. 88.

124. Id., pp. 87 and 90, respectively.

125. Id., p. 88.

126. Id., p. 86.

127. The statement was requested by Denmark; id., p. 89.

128. Ibid.

129. See, supra, at n. 114.

130. Off.Rec., vol. VI, p. 90Google Scholar, Paragraph 1 of the I.L.C.'s draft Article 71, as amended by the Danish proposal, was subsequently adopted by 41 votes in favour, 0 against and 8 abstentions. Draft Article 71, as amended, as a whole, was then adopted by 35 votes to 0, with 13 abstentions; id., p. 91.

131. Id., p. 120. The original wording of the French proposal was badly chosen: the term “continental shelf” is defined as the soil and subsoil, and it is therefore incorrect to refer to “the soil and subsoil of the continental shelf”.

132. Ibid.

133. Off.Rec., vol. II, p. 15.Google Scholar

134. Ibid.

135. A/CONF.13/L.13; Id., p. 93.

136. Id., p. 15. For the definitive text of the relevant paragraphs of the article, see, supra, Subsection 3.2.1.

137. Off.Rec., vol. II, p. 57.Google Scholar

138. Cf., Brown, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 354.Google Scholar

139. The provision of paragraph 1 is limited to fundamental oceanographic and other scientific research carried out with the intention of open publication. This limitation was included in the Danish proposal to make it clear that the freedom of scientific research would not extend to any research activities connected with the exploitation of the natural resources of the continental shelf.

140. Paragraphs 2–7 of Article 5 deal with mining installations; they contain rules connected with physical interference by these installations with navigation and fishing.

141. Cf., McDougal, and Burke, , op. cit., n. 76, p. 715.Google Scholar

142. Bouchez, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 600.Google Scholar

143. Brown, , op. cit., n. 4, pp. 355–356Google Scholar. McDougal, and Burke, , op. cit., n. 76, pp. 722–723Google Scholar. de Ferron, O., Le droit international de la mer, vol. 2, Geneva and Paris 1960, p. 220Google Scholar raises the question whether the first sentence of paragraph 8 should be interpreted as making all research concerning the continental shelf by vessels and other platforms operating in the marine environment subject to consent, thus excluding only research conducted by aircraft and from land or islands from this requirement.

144. Bouchez, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 600.Google Scholar

145. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 325.

146. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 138.

147. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 354.

148. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 148.

149. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 383.

150. U.N.L.S. (16), pp. 159–161 (incomplete). The complete text is reproduced in The North Sea. Challenge and opportunity, Sibthorp, M.M. ed., London 1975, pp. 303–305.Google Scholar

151. Petroleum legislation. Europe. Basic oil laws and concession contracts, Suppl. XXII. Redfield, op. cit., n. 4, p. 55Google Scholar, mentions a case where Portugal claimed that permission should have been obtained for research not involving physical contact.

152. Text in La actual revision del derecho del mar. Una perspectiva española, vol. 1, part 2, Poch, A. ed., Madrid, 1974, pp. 516–518.Google Scholar

153. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 440.

154. U.S. Interagency Committee on Oceanography, United States oceanographic research in foreign waters, I.C.O. Pamphlet No. 25, 1966, p. 7.Google Scholar

155. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 466.

156. According to Burke, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 52Google Scholar, the U.S. Department of the Interior requires permits for “exploratory vessels even though the vessel's activities do not make contact with the bottom”.

157. Decrees of 6 February 1968 (U.N.L.S.(15), p. 443), 13 August 1969 (U.N.L.S. (16), p. 167), and 18 July 1969 (in VI Soviet statutes and decisions, by W.E. Butler, 1970, p. 975).Google Scholar

158. Cf., Redfield, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 55.Google Scholar

159. See, supra, Subsection 3.2.3. (n. 121).

160. E.g., Australia, Denmark and Norway; Cf., notes 145, 146 and 150 supra.

161. According to Bouchez, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 600Google Scholar, the consent of the coastal State should be required for research undertaken on the continental shelf for purposes other than investigation of the continental shelf itself.

162. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Law no. 149 concerning the continental shelf of 5 March 1965; U.N.L.S. (15), p. 354.

163. Kildow, , op. cit., n. 5, pp. 14–18 mentions several cases.Google Scholar

164. Id., pp. 11 and 13.

165. Loc. cit., n. 152.

166. Kildow, , op. cit., n. 5, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

167. Loc. cit., n. 150.

168. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 354.

169. Id., p. 440.

170. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 160.

171. Kildow, , op. cit., n. 5, pp. 14 and 12Google Scholar. Redfield, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 57.Google Scholar

172. It is not altogether clear what is meant by “participate” and “represent”. Participation could mean that scientists appointed by the coastal State actually work together with the foreign scientists conducting the research. Representation could mean that persons appointed by the coastal State are present during the conduct of the research, without taking part in it.

173. Loc. cit., n. 152.

174. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 160.

175. Ibid.

176. Loc. cit., n. 152.

177. Cf., Vargas, , op. cit., n. 15, p. 8.Google Scholar

178. I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 39.Google Scholar

179. Id., pp. 41–42. See also, Jennings, , op. cit., n. 17, pp. 6–9.Google Scholar

180. Text in Vallée, C., Le plateau continental dans le droit positif actuel, Paris, 1971, pp. 311–313Google Scholar and in The North Sea. Challenge and opportunity, Sibthorp, M.M. ed., London, 1975, pp. 270–271.Google Scholar

181. Vallée, , op. cit., n. 180. p. 191.Google Scholar

182. U.N.L.S. (15), pp. 351–352.

183. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 25.

184. Id., pp. 78–81 (incomplete). The complete text is reproduced in Freedom of oceanic research, Wooster, W.S. ed., New York, 1973, pp. 251–255.Google Scholar

185. Cf., supra, Subsection 3.2.4

186. Loc. cit., n. 153.

187. Cf., Brown, , op. cit., n. 4, pp. 362–363.Google Scholar

188. Cf., Subsection 3.2.4 (B) supra (at n. 161).

189. See, inter alia, McDougal, and Burke, , op. cit., n. 76, pp. 923–1007.Google Scholar

190. Trb. 1959, p. 125; U.N.T.S., vol. 599, p. 286Google Scholar. The Convention entered into force on 20 March 1966. On 31 December 1975, 35 States (including the Netherlands) were party to the Convention.

191. Second U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records (A/CONF.19/8), pp. 169–171.Google Scholar

192. I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 24.Google Scholar

193. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 572.

194. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 302.

195. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 654.

196. Id., pp. 658–659.

197. Id., p. 271. Also in I.L.M. 1971, p. 1226.Google Scholar

198. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 267.

199. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 594.

200. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 295.

201. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 650.

202. U.N.L.S. (16), p. 241.

203. Act establishing a fisheries zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, 14 10 1966; U.N.L.S. (15), p. 701.Google Scholar

204. See, Schaefer, , op. cit., n. 11, p. 115.Google Scholar

205. Id., pp. 115–116. Brown, , op. cit., n. 4, pp. 344–346.Google Scholar

206. Trb. 1959, p. 123; U.N.T.S. vol. 516, p. 205Google Scholar (hereinafter referred to as Territorial Sea Convention). The Convention entered into force on 10 September 1964. On 31 December 1975, 45 States (including the Netherlands) were party to the Convention.

207. Cf., Brown, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 340Google Scholar. Menzel, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 628.Google Scholar

208. McDougal, and Burke, , op. cit., n. 76, pp. 606–607.Google Scholar

209. Burke, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 31.Google Scholar

210. Cf., Article 1 of the Territorial Sea Convention. It appears now to be generally accepted that the territorial sea may extend to 12 miles from the applicable baselines. The normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast, but in certain special circumstances States are entitled to use a system of straight baselines in stead of the lowwater line, cf., Articles 3 and 4 of the Territorial Sea Convention.

211. In certain cases, a right of innocent passage can also exist in maritime internal waters, cf., Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Territorial Sea Convention.

212. Loc. cit., n. 184.

213. Loc. cit., n. 150.

214. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 572.

215. Id., p. 594.

216. Id., p. 650.

217. Id., p. 654.

218. Id., pp. 658–659.

219. U.N.L.S.(16), p. 241.

220. U.N.L.S. (15), p. 701.

221. Menzel, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 622Google Scholar. Revelle, , op. cit., n. 29, p. 660.Google Scholar

222. Cf., Burke, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 21Google Scholar. Brown, , op. cit., n. 4, p. 339Google Scholar. Redfield, , op. cit., n. 4, pp. 44–46Google ScholarVargas, , op. cit., n. 15, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar